Ahhh! I'm officially terrified! Recording audio do
- Thread starter c.g._eads
- Start date
filmelife
Well-known member
let me rephrase that you dont need a mixer to get high quality audio,
if your situation requires (lcr) then yes, but thats about it.
here is what sound devices had to say
[FONT='PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif']
if your situation requires (lcr) then yes, but thats about it.
here is what sound devices had to say
[FONT='PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif']
The 7-series preamps are very high quality, so if the question is "do I need a mixer in front of the recorder to get high quality audio" then the answer is no. If you have no need for any of the mixers functions, then why use it. Being prepared for unexpected circumstances is another story. So even if a mixer is not required, it is probably not a bad idea to have one on hand for emergencies.
Thanks,
[FONT='PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif']Sound Devices LLC:violin:[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT='PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif']Sound Devices LLC:violin:[/FONT]
filmelife
Well-known member
dont get confused cg. A mixer is somewhat different than a recorder, but somethings overlap.
for instance, the sound devices 302 mixer offers three channels, therefore you can use three microphones and can have a Left, Centre, Right (lcr), you can gang two channels together if you wanted, hence the name mixer, you can set levels differently and pan them to L,C,R
then you output from the mixer can go to a camera or a recorder
a camera will only give you 16bit (good, depending on camera preamps)
a seperate recorder usually gives you 16bit or 24bit recording.
Now, as we stated a recorder (we'll use the sound devices 702) as an example, has two channels only not three, it too has output controls and you can assign each channel to left or right. A recorder also has volume controls, limiters, low cut filters (for bass and wind noise). In a way, a recorder technically has mixer functionality as you can MIX two sources through line or microphone input.
So you see, many things overlap between a mixer and a recorder. But of course the major difference is that the recorder obviously records.
make sense i hope
for instance, the sound devices 302 mixer offers three channels, therefore you can use three microphones and can have a Left, Centre, Right (lcr), you can gang two channels together if you wanted, hence the name mixer, you can set levels differently and pan them to L,C,R
then you output from the mixer can go to a camera or a recorder
a camera will only give you 16bit (good, depending on camera preamps)
a seperate recorder usually gives you 16bit or 24bit recording.
Now, as we stated a recorder (we'll use the sound devices 702) as an example, has two channels only not three, it too has output controls and you can assign each channel to left or right. A recorder also has volume controls, limiters, low cut filters (for bass and wind noise). In a way, a recorder technically has mixer functionality as you can MIX two sources through line or microphone input.
So you see, many things overlap between a mixer and a recorder. But of course the major difference is that the recorder obviously records.
make sense i hope
ullanta
Veteran
The problem is the slightly-strange usage of the term "mixer" in the film industry. In many cases, no "mixing" is done with a mixer. The term "preamp" is often more appropriate. But there are features of "mixers" that are beneficial and not often found on recorders, other than "mixing". These are things like tone generators, slate mics, better metering, limiting, monitoring, M-S decoding... lots o' stuff. And, mixing.
Most recorders record each input channel to a separate track, and don't allow much mixing. So, where a 302 has three inputs and two outputs, and can combine the 3 signals into 2 channels in a variety of ways, the 702 (I think; certainly most recorders) have 2 inputs, and record them to 2 separate tracks, and play 'em back to two separate channels.
There are multi-track recorders that handle more than two tracks; these allow you to keep all the mic signals separate and mix in post.
So, C.G., c.g., there are recorders that have preamps and some other features of mixers built in, which can be used without a mixer. But I don't know of any field recorders that actually mix signals. However, these are stariing to appear in the music world, and may show up in the production world as well... there's a music-style mixer out that records your two-channel mix to an iPod (!), and I'm sure flash versions of the same aren't far off. I have a Fostex VF160 which can either record 16 separate channels or record 2-track mix of said channels.... but it has limitations! So... keep your eyes peeled for this to change, but for now, field recorders don't mix, though they can be used in many cases without mixers.
Most recorders record each input channel to a separate track, and don't allow much mixing. So, where a 302 has three inputs and two outputs, and can combine the 3 signals into 2 channels in a variety of ways, the 702 (I think; certainly most recorders) have 2 inputs, and record them to 2 separate tracks, and play 'em back to two separate channels.
There are multi-track recorders that handle more than two tracks; these allow you to keep all the mic signals separate and mix in post.
So, C.G., c.g., there are recorders that have preamps and some other features of mixers built in, which can be used without a mixer. But I don't know of any field recorders that actually mix signals. However, these are stariing to appear in the music world, and may show up in the production world as well... there's a music-style mixer out that records your two-channel mix to an iPod (!), and I'm sure flash versions of the same aren't far off. I have a Fostex VF160 which can either record 16 separate channels or record 2-track mix of said channels.... but it has limitations! So... keep your eyes peeled for this to change, but for now, field recorders don't mix, though they can be used in many cases without mixers.
Okay, so it sounds like I'll be just fine with a recorder, recording two seperate tracks onto it and doing the mix in post. Good, one less piece of a equipment I have to scrounge up.
What about the lavs? If I lav two people up (which I will have to do in my movie), how do those wireless lavs send signals to my recorder? Do I have to buy compatible equipment? (recorder and lavs) - Or is all that stuff universally compatible?
What about the lavs? If I lav two people up (which I will have to do in my movie), how do those wireless lavs send signals to my recorder? Do I have to buy compatible equipment? (recorder and lavs) - Or is all that stuff universally compatible?
Ted Spencer
Veteran
To record them along with a pair of shotguns to a 2 channel recorder or camera, use a mixer : )
Seriously - you could use a 4 channel mixer to combine the 2 shotguns to one channel and the 2 lavs to the other. The 4 mics go in the mixer's inputs and the mixer's outputs go to the camera's inputs. Mix the 2 mic sources evenly together in each side's case. Or you could use a separate multichannel recorder (like a laptop and a MOTU interface) to record all the mics on separate channels, to be mixed in post.
Regarding the lavs connectivity, most will have XLR outputs that produce mic level, so you'd just plug them into your camera or mixer as if they were mics.
I don't think I'll need two shotgun mics and two lav mics running at the same time. Unless you're saying to get two recordings of the same scene/actors in case one "feed" is better than the other. It would be nice to have that, but I think I'll be okay with a maximum of two mics running at once. In that case, just getting a recorder, recording two seperate tracks, and then mixing in post should be okay, right?
Also, still a little confused by the lavs. Help me out here. You have a wireless lav mic. You put it on someone. What they say into this mic floats through the air until it gets to..... what? Where is the "receiver" end of this mic? Is it like some little box? And does that box then have an XLR cable connected to it, that then goes into your mixer/recorder?
Also, still a little confused by the lavs. Help me out here. You have a wireless lav mic. You put it on someone. What they say into this mic floats through the air until it gets to..... what? Where is the "receiver" end of this mic? Is it like some little box? And does that box then have an XLR cable connected to it, that then goes into your mixer/recorder?
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Right, or if your camera has decent audio capabilities, record the two mics directly into it. For example, an HVX200 has two XLR mic/line inputs, is 16 bit 48KHz, and is of acceptable quality for dialog recording. No separate recorder needed there if you're using only one or two mics.
Yes. Generally, the "little boxes" at each end (transmitter and receiver) are similar looking. In the case of Sennheiser G2 series they look exactly the same - a little smaller than a pack of cigarettes.
Matthew R. Rodwell
Well-known member
I am purchasing a Tascam HD-P2 for a feature, we will be using two mics for this so would you recommend it being paired with a mixer? If so can you recommend something under $500, im already spending most of our sound budget on the P2.
SD's Mixpre has a street price of $665 (but don't expect much pricing discounts with SD products.)
It's a light weight, well built, and excellent mixer if you think you'll only need 2 channels. But if you think you'll be adding three mics someday, then you'll be stuck. Of course more channels means larger, heavier mixer to carry around.
Otherwise, just rent a mixer.
Matthew R. Rodwell
Well-known member
I think i will just rent a mixer, im renting the mics already anyways.
mainstreetprod
Veteran
This is 100% unconventional, but this is what i am putting together to record audio for a movie I am shooting next month. It consists of 3 Audio Technica 3000 series recivers
(designed to plug into a PA system rather than a camera) and an Alesis Multimix 8 mixer (designed for home recording use). Plugged into the AT wireless recievers are
Countryman E6 earworn mics.
I happened to already own all this stuff so decided to try to incorparate it. It is mounted
on my tripod dolly so the whole thing will roll around with me, with outputs plugged into my HVX. The whole film will be shot at my church, so extreme portability is not required.
(designed to plug into a PA system rather than a camera) and an Alesis Multimix 8 mixer (designed for home recording use). Plugged into the AT wireless recievers are
Countryman E6 earworn mics.
I happened to already own all this stuff so decided to try to incorparate it. It is mounted
on my tripod dolly so the whole thing will roll around with me, with outputs plugged into my HVX. The whole film will be shot at my church, so extreme portability is not required.
sounddude
New member
Interesting topic with lots of great questions and information. Maybe too much information. I'll muddy the water a little more with my thoughts:
If you aren't syncing timecode of the audio recorder to the camera's timecode (if it has addressable TC), then just run your recorder at 30 frames non drop TC. This will only be for reference since you aren't syncing it to the camera. Digital is self resolving so it will maintain it's speed to it's own signal. If you are syncing to the camera, then you will need to take the TC from the camera and jam it into the recorder, or the other way around. You'll have to figure this out by testing it.
Do record your audio at 48 K. This is the standard, even though you can go higher. This is the important factor.
Use a slate (clap sticks) or your hands slapping in front of lens and near the mic (you'd be surprised at how many high end production companies still use the hand method). This will give you a manual sync point for the start of each take and you'll be glad you did it as there will be some minor drift, especially with long scenes.
Why are you using wireless lavs to do your movie? Why, why, why? We don't do that on the big films so don't do it on your movie. We always use boom mics for everything. And it's quite common to use two booms for wider scenes. The only time we drag out those terrible sounding, awful to fuss with wireless (and I have 7 of them) is when we have to because the DP wants to see the world in his frame! Then, we get all the coverage (reverses) on the boom and the sound editor will take the boom sound and insert it over the wide shots. So the wireless are normally just used for reference. A scratch track, as we call it.
I just finished a 6 week movie and had to use wires in way too many scenes. But I insisted that when we came in close for the coverage, we started the scenes at the very beginning, so we had the good sound of the boom for all of the dialog.
One last thing, if you are using timecode, do yourself a favor and call the post house (if you aren't cutting it yourself at home) and ask them what THEY want. It will save you a lot of time, heartache and MONEY!
Have fun!
If you aren't syncing timecode of the audio recorder to the camera's timecode (if it has addressable TC), then just run your recorder at 30 frames non drop TC. This will only be for reference since you aren't syncing it to the camera. Digital is self resolving so it will maintain it's speed to it's own signal. If you are syncing to the camera, then you will need to take the TC from the camera and jam it into the recorder, or the other way around. You'll have to figure this out by testing it.
Do record your audio at 48 K. This is the standard, even though you can go higher. This is the important factor.
Use a slate (clap sticks) or your hands slapping in front of lens and near the mic (you'd be surprised at how many high end production companies still use the hand method). This will give you a manual sync point for the start of each take and you'll be glad you did it as there will be some minor drift, especially with long scenes.
Why are you using wireless lavs to do your movie? Why, why, why? We don't do that on the big films so don't do it on your movie. We always use boom mics for everything. And it's quite common to use two booms for wider scenes. The only time we drag out those terrible sounding, awful to fuss with wireless (and I have 7 of them) is when we have to because the DP wants to see the world in his frame! Then, we get all the coverage (reverses) on the boom and the sound editor will take the boom sound and insert it over the wide shots. So the wireless are normally just used for reference. A scratch track, as we call it.
I just finished a 6 week movie and had to use wires in way too many scenes. But I insisted that when we came in close for the coverage, we started the scenes at the very beginning, so we had the good sound of the boom for all of the dialog.
One last thing, if you are using timecode, do yourself a favor and call the post house (if you aren't cutting it yourself at home) and ask them what THEY want. It will save you a lot of time, heartache and MONEY!
Have fun!
mainstreetprod
Veteran
Re: using wireless lavs in a movie...
In my case, I'm using wireless lavs only for scenes where the actors are moving quickly and a boom guy would be hard pressed to keep up, or would get in the shot. I will use a boom in any shot where it is practical.
In my case, I'm using wireless lavs only for scenes where the actors are moving quickly and a boom guy would be hard pressed to keep up, or would get in the shot. I will use a boom in any shot where it is practical.